Executive Director
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
September 19, 1996
The Honorable, The Legislature:
S891
We have completed a review of state agency efforts to provide prevention programs to children, youth, and families, as directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. These programs have been developed to address a wide variety of problems, including adolescent pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, crime and juvenile delinquency, domestic abuse, alcohol and other drug abuse, poor academic performances and school dropouts, and health problems. In fiscal year (FY) 1994-95, 13 state agencies administered the 88 prevention programs we identified, and program costs totaled $181.8 million.
We found significant overlap in the services provided to prevent various types of problems and in the populations to which these services are directed. While federal regulations have in some instances created barriers to the consolidation of program funds, the State has also created specific requirements that act as barriers to program consolidation.
Some attempts have been made to evaluate the effectiveness of prevention programs. Specifically, within the past ten years, efforts were made to evaluate the effectiveness of 31, or 35.2 percent, of the programs. However, additional efforts are needed if the Legislature and the public are to be assured that funds are dedicated only to programs that are likely to be effective in accomplishing their objectives. In addition, additional efforts to coordinate prevention activities could allow services to be provided more efficiently and effectively at both the state and the local level.
Although most programs could be consolidated within a single agency, more feasible strategies are likely to include consolidating funding for state programs that provide similar services; enhancing local prevention efforts through funding strategies that encourage development of local prevention initiatives and provide more flexibility in the use of state funds; and providing more effective information and technical assistance services, such as identifying effective models that local agencies may use in establishing their own programs.
Appendices to the report include descriptions of each of the prevention programs administered by state agencies. We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the many state and local staff and representatives of community-based organizations who assisted us during the course of this evaluation. Responses from the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Public Instruction, the two agencies to whom we have directed recommendations, are Attachments VI and VII, respectively.
Sincerely,
Dale Cattanach
State Auditor
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
September 16, 1996
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am pleased to provide you with the accompanying report of the State of Wisconsin Ethics Board's activities for the year July 1995 through June 1996. This report provides information on the Board's operations and contains the texts of Wisconsin's Ethics Code and lobbying law. It also includes a description of complaints and investigations pursued by the Ethics Board, and summaries of advisory opinions issued by the Board during the year.
Sincerely,
r. roth judd
Executive Director
State of Wisconsin
Public Defender
September 19, 1996
The Honorable, The Legislature:
This letter constitutes the report of the State Public Defender (SPD) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the use of the 12 FTE two-year paralegal project positions provided for in the 1995-97 biennial budget (
1995 Wisconsin Act 27).
To assist in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the positions, the agency has been soliciting feedback from the paralegals' supervisors on a monthly basis. As indicated in the SPD's Budget Forecasting Report, the agency's experience with the paralegals has yielded primarily positive results. The paralegals have enabled the agency to improve the quality of legal service provided and have demonstrated the potential for increasing the volume of cases handled.
However, the ability of the paralegals to facilitate an increased caseload is limited by licensing restrictions on tasks that they may perform. For example, paralegals may not represent clients in court proceedings, even for routine or uncontested hearings. Because the vast majority of an assistant state public defender's work time is spent in court, a paralegal's work is unable to equate 100% of the statutory attorney caseload.
Agency wide, paralegals currently enabled attorneys to handle additional cases approximating, on average, 25% of an attorney caseload. At this rate, the annual savings from the caseload generated by use of the paralegals is approximately $364,400. The annual cost of the 12 project positions, including salaries ($328,700), fringe benefits ($108,800) and supplies ($49,200), is approximately $486,700. Consequently, the paralegals currently result in a net annual cost to the agency of approximately $122,300.
The agency believes the paralegal project is still evolving, however, and that the paralegals may increase in efficiency and cost-effectiveness as they become more familiar with the SPD's legal practice and the field supervisors and attorneys become more skilled in their use of paralegals. Therefore, the agency has requested in its 1997-99 biennial budget proposal that the 12 paralegal project positions be continued for another two years at 50% of the statutory attorney caseload. Based on the agency's study of the project thus far, this caseload figure appears to be a more reasonable expectation of what the paralegals may achieve. If the goal is actually met, the ageny's use of the paralegals would result in a net annual savings of approximately $242,100 (assuming the cost figure remains constant).
Thank you for your support of the paralegal project and the agency.
Sincerely,
sally mayne pederson
Legal Counsel
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
September 17, 1996
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on August 28, 1996.
The amounts recommended for payment under $5,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007, Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $5,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
S892
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Main
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State Claims Board conducted hearings at 1 East Main Street, Madison, Wisconsin on August 28, 1996, upon the following claims:
Claimant
Amount
1. Mary Jane Houle (for John Niglis) $1,856.90
2. Lois Brucek $155,400.98
3. Consolidated Water Power Co. $38,343.00
4. Flambeau Paper Corp. $233,999.00
5. Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co. $4,089.00
6. Nekoosa Papers, Inc. $21,284.00
7. Niagara of Wisconsin $38,047.00
8. Northern States Power Co. $98,117.00
9. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co. $4,843.00
10. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. $87,250.00
11. Wisconsin Public Service Corp. $164,101.00
12. Wisconsin River Power Co. $76,463.00
13. Wisconsin Valley Improvement $78,863.00
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
14. Levi Boettcher $2,075.00
15. Terry & Buffy Gottowske $240.73
16. Mark Shepard $93.60
17. Fen-Tech, Inc. $816.00
18. Nitty Gritty Dirt Band $6,212.00
19. Tracy Oates $5,513.33
20. John Stiefel $250.00
21. Kenneth Vosekuil $233.20
22. Tasko Systems, Inc. $115,335.00
The Board Finds:
1. Mary Jane Houle of Southbury, Connecticut, claims $1,856 for refund of money seized in February 1995 from her son's savings account in a levy action by the Department of Revenue. The claimant's son had a delinquent tax account with a balance due of $2,697.47. The claimant's son owed taxes of $580.59 for 1986 and $91.65 for 1987 per income tax returns filed for those years. There was also an estimated tax assessment for 1988 of $2,025.24. Subsequent to the levy action, information was submitted which indicated that the claimant's son had no filing requirement for 1988. His delinquent account was adjusted to zero, however, the two year statute of limitations for a refund had expired. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
2. Lois Brucek of Ladysmith, Wisconsin, claims $155,400.98 for medical bills, lost wages, travel expenses and pain and suffering related to an accident at Interstate Park on July 25, 1995. The claimant and her husband were leaving the park and decided to stop at the park rest room. The claimant was carrying a lawn chair over one arm. As she approached the bathroom, she tripped on the edge of the cement skirting in front of the entrance. She fell forward, fracturing her hand and hitting her face on the cement. Her glasses were damaged, her lip was split open and she damaged or loosened six crowns on her teeth. The claimant's hand required therapy and eventually surgery and she has been unable to work since the accident. The claimant still has pain in her hand and has difficulty doing everyday chores such as bathing, dressing and cooking. She requests reimbursement as follows: $643.65 - travel expenses related to medical treatment. $4,509.57 - lost wages. $36.26 - prescription medication. $66.50 - repair of glasses. $45.00 - uninsured dental bills. $100.00 - hiring help for household chores. $35,000.00 - lost future wages. $80,000.00 - pain and suffering and unpaid bills ($440) for hired help. $20,000.00 - permanent damage to mouth and teeth. $15,000.00 - husband's claim of lost companionship. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. (Senator Burke dissenting.)
3. Consolidated Water Power Company of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, claims $38,343.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
4. Flambeau Paper Corporation of Park Falls, Wisconsin, claims $233,999.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
S893
5. Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company of Marinette, Wisconsin, claims $4,089.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
6. Nekoosa Papers, Inc. of Port Edwards, Wisconsin, claims $21,284.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
7. Niagara of Wisconsin of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, claims $38,047.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
8. Northern States Power Company of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, claims $98,117.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
9. Weyerhaeuser Paper Company of Rothschild, Wisconsin, claims $4,843.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
10. Wisconsin Power and Light Company of Madison, Wisconsin, claims $87,250.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
S894
11. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation of Green Bay, Wisconsin, claims $164,101.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
12. Wisconsin River Power Company of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, claims $76,463.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
13. Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company of Wausau, Wisconsin, claims $78,863.00 for reimbursement of fees paid to the Department of Natural Resources from 1990 through 1995. The fees were collected by the Department under s.
23.42, Stats., for costs incurred by the Department for conducting environmental studies of the claimant's hydroelectric power projects. The Department required the claimant to pay the fees and the statute provided no mechanism for protest. Section
23.42, Stats., was declared unconstitutional on January 4, 1996, by US District Court Judge Barbara Crabb and the Department was enjoined from attempting to enforce the statute. The claimant believes the Department of Natural Resources acted beyond its authority when it collected fees pursuant to an unconstitutional statute and that the state was unjustly enriched in the amount of those payments. The claimant requests reimbursement of the moneys it paid to the Department pursuant to s.
23.42, Stats. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
14. Levi Boettcher of Alma, Wisconsin, claims $2,075.00 for the loss of 25 lambs that were killed by coyotes. The lambs are valued at $83 each. The claimant states that the DNR has refused to control the coyotes. The claimant believes that because the DNR has the power to "protect, conserve, and regulate the taking, use, and disposition of wild animals" that the DNR should be held responsible for the damage done by the coyotes. The claimant feels that since the state owns the coyotes, the state should reimburse him for the loss of his lambs. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
15. Terry and Buffy Gottowske of Nekoosa, Wisconsin, claim $240.73 for reimbursement of uninsured medical bills related to an incident at Devil's Lake State Park. The claimants' son was bitten by a wild animal while the claimants were camping at the park. The claimants were not able to locate or identify the animal. The claimants' son was treated at the hospital and received a series of rabies shots. Their medical insurance covered all but $240.73. The claimants feel it is only fair for the state to pay the bills, since the incident would not have occurred if they had not been camping at the park. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
16. Mark Shepard of Richland Center, Wisconsin, claims $93.60 for replacement and cleaning cost for clothing and a sleeping bag which were damaged while the claimant was camping at Tower Hill State Park, on May 29, 1996. He was unaware that there were picnic tables at the park which had been painted that day. He left his campsite to go for a walk that evening. He laid his sleeping bag on a picnic table so he could look at the stars and he sat down on the table. His sleeping bag, shirt and pants were badly stained by the wet paint on the table. There was no "wet paint" sign on any of the picnic tables. He tried to have the shirt cleaned but the stain would not come out. He requests reimbursement for his cleaning bill, sleeping bag, shirt and pants. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $93.60 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Natural Resources appropriation s.
20.370 (1)(mu), Stats.
17. Fen-Tech, Inc., of Superior, Wisconsin, claims $816.00 for reimbursement of overpayment of fees due to incorrect filing of a foreign corporation annual report with the Secretary of State's office. The claimant incorrectly reported 90,000 issued shares of no par value stock, when the correct figure was 8,000 shares. If the claimant had filled out the report correctly, no fee would have been assessed. The claimant requests reimbursement of the $816 fee. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
